IG finds Justice Dept spied on Patel and others

....except Trump didn't say anything here about him executing Milley. The actual Trump quote (from your link) was: “This is an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been death!” Speaking of times past (or times gone by) when ones who were found guilty of treason would have been executed. He is clearly not speaking in the present or suggesting in any way that is something he would even consider.

What other lies you got for us today?

 

OP true to form

 

AG material

 

Although he wasn't explicit it was rather obvious that if not actually executed Trump thought that Gen. Milley should be tried for treason. In Trump's mind not agreeing with the president on every issue is a form of treason analogous to a time when disagreeing with the King was considered a form of treason punishable by beheading.

 

We disagree

 

I understand that. You can disagree, that does not change the thinking on the other side of the aisle. Even non-Trump Republicans have concerns about the FBI and how it has been run from the Obama Admin through the Trump Admin through the Biden Admin.

 

This never maga pub doesn't feel that way.

But I also know that he didn't win in 20 and should be in jail for J6 and documents.

What would happen to you if you handled classified materials the way he did?

Has OP realized that this started under djt yet?

 

They may "think" that, but not only is there no reliable evidence to support that accusation, it points to a highly partisan road filled with potholes.

It saddens and depresses me that the country I've loved, and served, is being overrun by folks without principles who are mesmerized and weaponized by the worst human being ever to occupy the White House. They've contorted the evidence to conclude an election was stolen and, now, that the FBI (lead by a Trump appointee no less) is politicized. Evidence doesn't matter to them. The welfare of the country doesn't matter. All they care about is getting power and pleasing Trump.

It's disgusting.

 

My point was about that poster starting a thread on it.
But ... if this were just the right's continued anger with the FBI, why didn't Fox have a story on it? At least I didn't see it. Because it couldn't point fingers at Biden.

 

pretty sad when the weaponization of law enforcement seems to only get the attention of a lot of people & the media when it is weaponized against politicians. how many times have these big gov cry babies told the people that they've nothing to worry about if they've done nothing wrong?

I was raised in a household where if you didn't have anything bad to say about the gov, you keep your mouth shut. Now, they've got whinny fan clubs.

 

Interesting on #1.

Agree on the election in '20.

I was not POTUS. I've stated here many times that until the SCOTUS weights in on what the declassification process is for a POTUS, we are all only speculating on what is or is not legal.

Yes, this incident happened with the FBI under Trump. I cannot remember and have not dug into this topic enough to know who was still running the FBI at this point. The point is that the FBI under Trump was still very hostile towards him for much of his first term, which is not how the FBI is suppose to respond to a new POTUS they work for.

 

Where you were when I was on this board pointing out that Democrats would have just been better off admitting that Comey and his crew at the FBI along with the Obama DoJ had made a grave mistake going after FISA warrants against the Trump Campaign? If they had just admitted it and worked on legislation that would have prevented it from happening again in the future, all of this could have been avoided and it would be better for both sides moving forward. For that argument, I was repeatedly told on here that I was wrong and that the FBI acted appropriately in that case until the DoJ IG came out said they had not.

I'm not in favor of Kash Patel being FBI Director for multiple different reasons. But his nomination is the direct response to the things I laid out above. And I understand you disagree with all of that but the American people just voted in favor of it, so what does that tell you?

 

So now whether or not Fox News decides to cover a story decides whether or not something is a real story on The Right?

 

I'm never going to question the results of a fair election. Indeed, immediately afterwards, I posted that Trump won, and that the will of the voters should be respected. The voters had issues they were concerned about and believed (I think wrongly, but that's neither here nor there) that he was the candidate who would best address them. Since then, he's made concerning comments on social media. More concerning, he's appointed some folks whose only qualification is total loyalty to him. Before you object, yes, any president deserves loyalty, but the people who elect him deserve qualified candidates whose first loyalty is to the Constitution.

In short, I respect the will of the voters, but have none for Trump and expect him to make a mockery of the greatest democracy the planet has ever known. I pray I'm wrong, and that he surprises us.

 

Shouldn't the fbi be hostile to criminals and those suspected of putting national security at risk?

Nice dance around documents case. You are not being honest with yourself but that is the nature of partisan politics. The process has been defined for a long time, just not by the ussc.

I guess since ussc didn't rule that he shouldn't incite people to storm the capital and kill Pence than you have no opinion on that either

 

Show me where the evidence was that the Trump campaign were criminals and hostile to US NatSec in ‘16.

The declassification process for a POTUS has not been established since it has never been ruled on by the SCOTUS. The classification system is set up by an EO and exists to help the POTUS make decisions. The question is if the POTUS can be constrained by an EO process where as the head of the Executive Branch, he has to submit something to an SES or GS-15 before he can act. That question was going to have to go to the SCOTUS in the documents case. Based on how the last case about the POTUS official duties went at the SCOTUS, I’m not sure that one would have worked out well for Jack Smith.

I think Jan 6th was awful and Trump should have been impeached for it. Its one of the many reasons I did not vote for him. Do not mistake my criticism of the FBI as support for Trump. There are still a lot of Non-Trump Republicans that have IC experience are still very upset about the FBI and Democrats promoting the Steele Dossier to attempt to hamstring a neely elected POTUS that they were unhappy about.

 

I would agree with you on some of Trump’s nominees. The thing I find interesting is the lack of self-reflection among Democrats and Never Trumpers in how we got to this place. I'm not particularly interested going into detail because I do not like defending Trump but Democrats and their allies played a large role in bringing us to this point and it would be refreshing if they were able to admit that and say they are willing to call a truce when it comes to the Lawfare.

 

The Democratic party is out of touch with middle America, to be sure. It's missing a charismatic leader who resonates across the ideological spectrum. There are too many people putting in their stakes too far from the middle and then refusing to compromise. Without compromise, everything grinds to a halt.

 

For anyone that really cares about what went on here, the FBI and DoJ career employees were getting a judge to sign off on warrants for a third party to hand over the communications of Members of Congress and their staff without telling the Judge who these people were and they did not have to tell their superiors at DoJ/FBI that they were doing it to get approval. Since this could have impacts on Congress to do their job of oversight of the DoJ, the DoJ has not said that this was wrong and that an Assistant Attorney General will have to sign off on this in the future.